Discuss game development here, from a distinct game project to an accessible third-party mutator, down to the interaction and design of individual units if you like.
CarRepairer wrote:You may have lost the overall war but you can still relish a few minor victories as your base is overrun by an onslaught of superior enemy forces.
Ah yes, building an intricate defensive line, to watch it go down in a glorious onslaught can be a load of fun in it's self, forgetting the rest of the game.
CarRepairer wrote:Being that I'm not a very good player, I've found that the game must be enjoyable to play whether you are winning or losing. This is crucial. And believe it or not, perfect balance and game mechanics come second to this fact.
The video part of the enjoyment may be the easier thing to conceptually handle, but what about the player's engagement? Some times the player wants to watch and other times the player wants to be fully engaged with purposeful human choices that effect the out come of the game.
That brings up another focus; the metal draw on the player. Not all people want a relaxing game. Some do. Some want to be entertained while they pass time. I suppose that if you let the players' focus or skill balance the mental drain on the player, it may be best because the game is then ready for all levels of effort. Unit micro may be what has balanced this in the past for most games.
KaiserJ wrote:ive always thought that in FFA games especially it would be cool if defeated opponents were somehow amalgamated into the conquering force... like, if i kill x player, i have the option after to invite him into comshare mode (and subsequently boot him if he became a problem)
Or if he's added to your team as a teamspec/backup (see CA) - that is, a player with no equipment who is part of your alliance. Then you can share hardware to him as you see fit... although you'd have to modify your resource system so that the "slave" player automatically gets the resources he needs to run his hardware.
KaiserJ wrote:ive always thought that in FFA games especially it would be cool if defeated opponents were somehow amalgamated into the conquering force... like, if i kill x player, i have the option after to invite him into comshare mode (and subsequently boot him if he became a problem)
Or if he's added to your team as a teamspec/backup (see CA) - that is, a player with no equipment who is part of your alliance. Then you can share hardware to him as you see fit... although you'd have to modify your resource system so that the "slave" player automatically gets the resources he needs to run his hardware.
Those were removed from CA (but I still have them in CAK).
Not really needed though. The ceasefire feature works out when wanting to subjugate (thanks spellcheck) players. Whenever det was down for the count, he'd quickly tell the attacker that he offers his service to help them if they spare his life.
There are heaps of FFA style games where you get an advantage from fighting. They are the most popular type of custom map for almost every single RTS. Footman wars, Castle Blood, etc.
Generally the only resource you can get in these games is kills.
They have one major flaw, which all of them share. Fighting an opponent is HELPING him, its like a mutually beneficial trade relationship. The objective of the game is ultimately to find a player who is stupid enough to 'feed' you, that is, engage in a disadvantageous battle with you so you can get kills without losing much. Drive him to desperation so he throws his units at you piecemeal. This can be especially bad depending on the map design, if you start opposite a noob, you can completely stomp him, and once you get a lead its runaway because anyone else who attacks you just feeds you more, since you are stronger. In fact, the only way to beat a leading player is, generally, to deliberately fight only the weaker players to ensure both you and they get the kills, not him.
To combat this, most variants offer a kind of 'nuke' of some kind which allows you to instantly kill an opponents force, but you only have a limited number of them. This means if you drive a player to desperation, he can kill all your units, but it sacrifices a precious resource in the long term. In fact, there are some variants where the whole point of the game is to run down the enemies 'nukes' by attacking him repeatedly with a force just large enough to force him to do it, before you can kill him.
They are interesting games, and i've been a big fan of some of their variants, but the problems of slippery slope, noobstomping and uneven fights due to army size are much worse than most rts's.
To address the actual question though, there are four solutions to uneven skill as i see it:
1. Ranked matchmaking. This is really the only and vastly preferred solution, if you have enough players.
2. Make the game end quickly if outmatched, rather than prolonging suffering (a good surrender mechanic, or a culture of surrendering like in SC, is good. Weirdly, spring has no surrender culture- probably because its so often played as a teamgame. It needs surrender voting, imo).
3. Have a lot of unit counter mechanics and other tricks players can pull, so that when you are down you can still take your pound of flesh and beat a superior army with good play and composition (though, of course, this depends on skill, so not really a solution).
4. Simply make the units fun to control, the mechanics and play fun to execute, regardless of outcome. Some units and strategies just feel really fun if executed correctly, like roaching an incoming army (CA) or stunning some important unit with a spy, or being a d-gun hero.
